Characteristics of Population-Based Practice in Physical Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Physical therapy is placing new emphasis on how the profession might contribute to improving population health. However, little is known about the nature of population-based practice (PBP) of physical therapists. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a view of PBP from the perspective of physical therapists engaged in it. METHODS: Twenty-one physical therapists participating in PBP were interviewed. Qualitative descriptive analysis was used to summarize results. RESULTS: Most of the reported PBP was at the community and individual level, and the most common types of PBP were health teaching and coaching, collaboration and consultation, and screening and outreach. Three topic areas were identified (with respective themes): characteristics of PBP (meeting group or community needs, promotion and prevention, access, and movement), preparation for PBP (core vs elective, experiential learning, social determinants of health, and health behavior change), and rewards and challenges of PBP (intrinsic rewards, funding and resources, professional recognition, and complexity of behavior change). CONCLUSION: PBP in physical therapy presents practitioners with rewards and challenges as they work to improve the health of populations. IMPACT: Physical therapists who are currently engaged in PBP are, in effect, defining the role of the profession in improving health at a population level. The information in this paper will help the profession move from a theoretical view of the role of physical therapists in improving population health to understanding what this role looks like in practice.

Beyond the individual: population health and physical therapy.

Improving the health of populations is critical to meeting global health targets. The purpose of this article is to define population health and differentiate it from related concepts and introduce a framework that can be used to inform the population-based practice of physical therapists. The Population-Based Practice (PBP) Framework is modified from the Public Health Nursing Intervention Wheel and can be used to understand levels (i.e., systems, community, and individual) and types (i.e., screening and outreach, referral and follow-up, health teaching and coaching, consultation and collaboration, advocacy and policy development, and social marketing) of population-based practice. Several physical therapy examples illustrate selected cells within the model. The PBP Framework provides practitioners, educators, and scholars with a new way to envision population-based practice for physical therapists. Such a shift in both thinking and practice is needed if physical therapists are to use their unique skills to move beyond the individual, embracing population-based practice to improve health outcomes and reduce health disparities while controlling costs.

Quality in physical therapist clinical education: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many factors affect student learning throughout the clinical education (CE) component of professional (entry-level) physical therapist education curricula. Physical therapist education programs (PTEPs) manage CE, yet the material and human resources required to provide CE are generally overseen by community-based physical therapist practices. PURPOSE: The purposes of this systematic review were: (1) to examine how the construct of quality is defined in CE literature and (2) to determine the methodological rigor of the available evidence on quality in physical therapist CE. METHODS: This study was a systematic review of English-language journals using the American Physical Therapy Association's Open Door Portal to Evidence-Based Practice as the computer search engine. The search was categorized using terms for physical therapy and quality and for CE pedagogy and models or roles. Summary findings were characterized by 5 primary themes and 14 subthemes using a qualitative-directed content analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included in the study. The primary quality themes were: CE framework, CE sites, structure of CE, assessment in CE, and CE faculty. The methodological rigor of the studies was critically appraised using a binary system based on the McMaster appraisal tools. Scores ranged from 3 to 14. LIMITATIONS: Publication bias and outcome reporting bias may be inherent limitations to the results. CONCLUSION: The review found inconclusive evidence about what constitutes quality or best practice for physical therapist CE. Five key constructs of CE were identified that, when aggregated, could construe quality.